Monday, January 15, 2007

DBR on 60 Minutes

Duke Basketball Report has a superb analysis of the 60 Minutes piece, but also a thoughtful—and, in my opinion, unanswerable—set of recommendations for Richard Brodhead.

DBR notes, correctly, that Brodhead is currently in a difficult position, because “no matter what he does, he’s going to offend various constituencies.” An example of this problem, of course, came after Brodhead lifted the suspensions of Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty—only to see Karla Holloway ostentatiously resign her position as chair of the “race subgroup” of the CCI. DBR also notes, correctly, that for good reasons, the power of any University president to control the faculty is limited.

That said, Duke needs to be able to recruit new students. What prospective parent could have watched 60 Minutes and not have been troubled by the current situation? So what can Brodhead do?

DBR: “One thing which Brodhead could do, it seems to us, which everyone should agree with, is to make it clear to the city of Durham that Duke students must be treated the same as any other citizens and that Duke will not tolerate any further mistreatment of its students. Certainly parents of students (present and prospective) would wish this to be so.”

This problem has ranged from the “extraordinary” (the treatment of the lacrosse players) to the more ordinary, where “Durham police have quite frankly discriminated against Duke students as a class, which is a violation of their civil rights.”

Moreover, “as Professor James Coleman has made clear, if you can do what Nifong did to rich people, it’s ten times easier to do it to poor ones. Brodhead has an opportunity to let Duke serve Durham, and to build bridges, by having Duke help keep the justice system honest. Perhaps law students could organize themselves and monitor the district attorney’s office for any further abuses, particularly against people who can’t fight back as the lacrosse families have done.”

(This is one of the best suggestions I’ve seen in the entire case.)

Brodhead could also, DBR suggests, use his moral authority as Duke president to, “when the time is right, even advocate for major reform in the state system of justice,” creating an opportunity for “an impressive legacy for any university president.”

I agree 100% with the editorial in general and the point about the necessary limits on a president’s control of his or her faculty. There are, however, three things that I think Brodhead can, and should do, that even adherents of the most limited possible presidential role could support.

1.) Take concrete steps to ensure that all Duke professors adhere to Chapter Six of the Duke Faculty Handbook, which opens with the following passage:

Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.

2.) Work behind the scenes—while an administration’s formal powers over faculty is limited, good presidents have considerable informal influence—to obtain more faculty signatures for the Economics Department’s letter, with a goal of getting a majority of arts and sciences professors to go on the record that they welcome all students, including student-athletes, into their classes.

3.) Consider a faculty version of the CCI, to explore such issues as whether the structure of Duke’s arts and sciences hiring patterns created a situation in which such a sizable—and vocal—segment of the arts and sciences faculty could have taken such a dubious position in this case, and, more important, demonstrated no apparent willingness to reconsider the merits of its actions.

“as Professor James Coleman has made clear, if you can do what Nifong did to rich people, it’s ten times easier to do it to poor ones."

Thankfully, the LAX players' parents appear to have the monetary means to fight this to the bitter end. Anyone else would have to plea bargain, become a registerd sex offender , and be screwed for life.

Brodhead has been a follower, not a leader, as this case has unfolded. He has lagged safely to the rear. Brodhead is not going to spearhead any reform initiatives. He seems more the muddle-through type to me.

On one area I disagree: the bit about "high standards" in the Faculty Handbook is an utterly toothless anti-bullying provision. It's unenforceable -- what particular act short of declaring that you're failing a student for being a lacrosse player (or an ROTC member) is not "high standards" -- and what penalty would attach to being a faculty lowlife? For instance, I notice that a review of Michael Munger, chair of PoliSci and feckless supervisor of Kim Curtis, says that he consistently comes to class unprepared. This is almost certainly a violation of Section 6 of the Handbook, but how would you bring a complaint? Who would investigate? What penalty would attach? Munger is an academic superstar and gets away with what he will. "High Standards" means nothing, and conservative profs would also scream that you'd be giving the liberals a stick to beat them with. Conservative prof comes to class late, he's up on charges.

In the matter of the Group of 88 and similar problems, I would enforce the provisions of Section c of the AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom and Tenure. The AAUP gets its knickers in a knot when universities do, but after all, it's the AAUP's canons. In fact, a commenter on an earlier thread said there'd been a closed-door meeting between administrators and faculty at Duke on "the limits of free speech". Sounds like a good idea, if belated -- but section c covers that, not some vague stuff about "high standards".

"But in a broader sense, Durham police have quite frankly discriminated against Duke students as a class, which is a violation of their civil rights. In particular, Sgt. Mark Gottlieb has arrested a significantly higher number of Duke students than his peers, with some students reporting threats and violence."

Maybe Duke should sue Durham. They could recoup some of the money they will lose when the civil suits start draining the University.

Members of the faculty expect Duke students to meet high standards of performance and behavior. It is only appropriate, therefore, that the faculty adheres to comparably high standards in dealing with students . . . Students are fellow members of the university community, deserving of respect and consideration in their dealings with the faculty.

I agree with 10:36. The above statement from the Faculty Handbook is academic puffery.

1036 is of course very correct (and shows the reason I oppose the toothless ABOR: it’s like asking the citizens of Darfur to use the UN Declaration of Human Rights as a paper shield -- literally).

The 88 were unethical to the core, contributed to a hostile learning environment to both the lacrosse team and other "white" student athletes as a class. We have more than hints in one case that there was malicious grade "retaliation" from one of the 88. We have a recent smug and arrogant OPED that attempted to divorce previous misconduct and silent support of such harassment from Davidson that only a postmodernist would believe. As an advisor, I would NEVER send a student, especially one who matched the demographic profile they aligned themselves against, to any of the 88 even for a clapping for credit or other Mickey Mouse general ed course.

Unfortunately the DBR does not address this critical fact: There are 88 faculty members (at minimum) who do not deserve the students’ trust, parents’ trust, administrators’ trust, and most importantly university accreditors’ (e.g., ABET, NCATE) trust.

Unfortunately, the only thing that will snap Duke too is a civil rights lawsuit.

“Brodhead is currently in a difficult position, because “no matter what he does, he’s going to offend various constituencies.”

“DBR also notes, correctly, that for good reasons, the power of any University president to control the faculty is limited.”

The first quote only highlights the fact that Brodhead has been more concerned about “offending” certain people than doing the right thing. It’s unfortunate that academia had been so turned upside down that “offending” takes precedence over “basic morality”.

The second quote is even more troubling as it vastly understates the problem. It’s not that the president cannot control what the faculty says. The problem is that the faculty can control what the president and other officers of the university say. One only has to look at what happened to Summers at Harvard when he exercised “academic freedom” and said something that didn’t conform to proper PC. It amounts to letting the inmates run the asylum.

Academia has degenerated to the point that management has little real say over the actual running of the enterprise. Until that changes, and there is just about zero evidence that it will, the degradation will only continue.

If the parents of the 3 kids very publicly bring suit against Duke, the problem will, at least, be exposed. If they can extract a significant sum from the university, academia will get its first reality check as to the cost of letting the inmates run the asylum and the pandering to radical left wingers.

"DBR also notes, correctly, that for good reasons, the power of any University president to control the faculty is limited." the "good reasons" are never stated though, neither in the article or kc's piece. i simply dont understand the argument that accountibility for teacher actions is a bad thing.

An apology for his initial remarks, for inducing the students to cooperate with Nifong without contacting their parents and obtaining counsel, and for the unethical conduct of the Gang of 88 should be on any list.

College heads are generally overpaid lackeys of an increasingly leftist faculty and he won't do anything but some lame p.r. though.

If your kid in in the non engineering non economics non medical school part of the school, he'd be wise to transfer, and if he is considering where to go, skip the highly overrated Duke.Strike a blow for freedom, go to school someplace else.

The DBR article is insightful. With regard to Duke students being a target for DPD - this has been going on for years. I think it’s called a shakedown. Recall the dorm room inquisition?

Brodhead has demonstrated such poor leadership during this period - I hardly no where to begin. Unfortunately, Brodhead has failed to understand that leadership can be, at times confrontational, requiring him to make decisions and take positions that are not politically expedient or contingencies based.

Of greater concern and never talked about is the apparent attitude of the administration and some facility members. In my opinion, they have forgotten who pays the bills and ensures the university’s long term success. It’s not the management or faculty – its families – many who resent or are beginning to see the truth of how their sons and daughters may be treated by this institution. In fairness to Duke, this issue can be found in other institutions of higher learning.

In the absence of real leadership -the vacuum is filled. Duke University is no exception.

If Duke students, facility members, administrators, alumni and families are not outraged and energized enough to demand change, then it should surprise no one that Brodhead is the President, faculty members intimidate, slander and promote agendas contrary to the well being of the university, public officials actively pursue policies that are criminal and media spin passes for truth.

What a FANTASTIC idea! - to create a panel of Duke Law students to work as 'overseers' in the DA's office. I think it's utterly brilliant. It would certainly give the 'everyday' Durham resident (at least ones in the judicial system) some connection to Duke. This way, it would lessen the ability for the Durham community to have a vitriolic hatred towards Duke.

By the way, at least some of the G88 are STILL hard at work in trying to railroad Reade, Collin, and Dave. After the letter from the Economics Department, I emailed the chair and he told me that a number of the signees were receiving hostile emails from other faculty members, and I suspect we do not have to guess who might have been involved.

Part of the irony here is that members of the G88 are trying to portray themselves as VICTIMS, as they have received hostile emails and telephone messages, so to them it is proof that anyone who supports the lacrosse players is evil.

Yet, we also know that these poor victims have been attacking other people, going on the offensive, demanding the accused be railroaded to rape convictions, and attacking people who disagree with them. Houston Baker, in calling the lacrosse players "farm animals," demonstrates the mentality of the G88.

You see, they believe themselves to be SO morally superior to everyone else that they can say what they want, do what they want, and allege what they want, and we are supposed to treat them as though they are speaking ex cathedra.

Yet, disagree with them, and we are vicious racists who want poor black women to be raped by evil white "farm animals." Here are people who thanked protesters for demanding that some young men be castrated and thrown into prison on false charges. Here are people who DEMANDED that due process be denied to people accused of crimes, yet when they receive a few hostile emails, they go to pieces.

Granted, not all of the signees are in this category, but it is time for all of them to admit that they were wrong. Yes, wrong.

You know what's sort of funny? I remember when I was in college a story about how Harvard was allowing bums to sit in classrooms during lectures, and the Harvard student were forced to sit in the aisles. That struck me as bizarre, because at my own school, Loyola, Baltimore, they would have called in a SWAT team. The school would have gone crazy.

Then again, Loyola is one of the most conservative schools in the country. It's run by old school Jesuits, the kind that are too hard core to teach at Georgetown. In one class, I had a prof tell all males to remove our baseball hats because we weren't attending his class to get jobs where we would be wearing them (or chewing gum, or yawning without placing our hands over our mouths). That, BTW, was a Latin American history class (humanities profs can be old school, you see, contrary to the Duke experience).

Obviously, allowing a stinky bum to sit in your student's seat during a lecture, slumped over, smelly and passed out drunk, is not conducive to a proper learning environment. Yet the profs in charge simply could not bring themselves to look out for the students' interests and tell the guy to get out, or call campus security and fix the problem, so their students could have the "privilege" to take a seat.

In light of this, can Duke really incorporate the changes asked for by this writer? In order to do so, they would actually have to admit that the obvious is a problem. Such self awareness seems to be unattainable at this time. Sad but true.

Like Harvard being incapable of telling the stinky bum to exit the classroom, Duke appears incapable of addressing the obvious situation that its own students are being targeted by the police and the justice system because of their elevated status. It works against the administration's worldview.

That has to be addressed from the top, and I don't see the gutless wonder being capable of doing it.

My recommendation -- when the time comes for civil law suits, sue in federal court -- as a group of individuals and parents from several states, they could easily meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction, and the federal court system is not as tainted by local politics as the system in Durham clearly is.

So like a couple of other commenters, I want to know what these "good reasons" are. If I speak out on a subject from my desk at work using the telephone or even the e-mail system that my employer provides me, sign a letter either on company letterhead or use my title at work that implies I am speaking for the entity, I am at risk of being booted out for acts not in the company's best interest.

I can go home and exercise my 1st amendment rights but even then I can make the statements using my title or letterhead or otherwise not make it clear that my comments are my own and not those of the company where someone could legitimately reach a different conclusion.

Why in the world should academia be any different I ask. Dont tell me about freedom to advocate in a classroom. That has nothing to do with the point I am making. ADs in the paper are not speech in a classroom.

My, my, my, how quickly we forget!!! The kids are still under indictment and we are already trying to accomodate brodhead. For a great many of us, the only acceptable choice is for that feckless boob to GO. Along with as many of the g88 as possible.

College heads are generally overpaid lackeys of an increasingly leftist faculty and he won't do anything but some lame p.r. though.

University presidents can be forced out for good reason if faculty and alumni voice their concerns to the trustees. The University of Richmond accepted the resignation of their president a year ago after he culminated a contentious relationship with the remark, "The entering quality of our student body needs to be much higher if we are going to transform bright minds into great achievers instead of transforming mush into mush, and I mean it." This is after he had been president since 1998.

Monitoring the DA's office is certainly a good idea. The entire legal system in the state needs monitoring. Lawyers in NC get away with whatever they want. This would include legal aid groups with agendas, medical malpractice, state legislature, and wherever lawyers function. I doubt lawyers could monitor there own. In fact there might not be any moral individuals in NC that could qualify.

Brodhead does not inspire confidence or respect. Waiting got this to go away is not helping Duke. Duke needs someone tall in the saddle, like Professor Coleman. I think he can also handle the 88 with no problem. I am beginning to think Nifong did all this for the book and movie deal.

I have a much better idea, folks, if you really want to avoid this in the future.

Duke University accepts federal funds from the department fo education.

If you really want to avoid this happening in the future, and want to fire an out of control faculty member with tenure, the Fed. simply, and by statute, makes any unversity that accepts federal funds a state actor for purposes of 42 USC Section 1983 liability.

I can assure that when faced with this, the experience at Duke where they throw three students and an entire class of students under the bus for purposes of political correctness will never be repeated. Little caveats will be written into employment contracts about temination under these circumstances for profs by order of insurance companies. Tenure with conditions will arise, which is the way it should be.

I watched the 60 minutes piece with my girlfriend who is a nurse, and when the medications that Crystal was on were mentioned, I asked my girlfriend if she knew about them and what they were for.

Briefly, they are heavy duty medications. We may want to ask Kathleen over at Forensics Talk to do an article about the drugs because people who are on those meds are suffering serious psychological problems.

The involvement of faculty in university governance goes back many centuries, and it has generally been a good thing for universities in the western world. The idea is that faculty members are the experts in their subject matter and that they have a vested interest in maintaining standards for faculty and students. For traditional faculty members that is still true.

A university is not bricks or administrators. It is not even students because they turn over so quickly. The faculty is the university. The president of a university presides over the faculty. He/she is not their boss.

The problems started in the Sixties when left wing activists began to take over the liberal arts areas of universities. At elite schools they have run off or refused to hire faculty who do not share their activist vision. Very little intellectual diversity remains at elite schools as can be seen by the situation at Duke.

According to the blog moderator, Professor James Coleman's suggestion to have Duke law students voluntarily monitor the DA's office is--I'm paraphrasing--1 of the best suggestions yet.

I've been appreciating the strategic suggestions of JC/Roman Polanski oner the last month, and IMO his/her suggestions about how to eradicate Duke of politically oriented "scholarship" were absolutely brilliant. Professor Coleman's idea is not.

Just watched the 60 Minutes replay on the CBS website. I was trying to figure out who Brodhead reminded me of when it struck me. He reminds me of the wimpy father in A Clockwork Orange in the scene where Malcolm McDowell returns home and his parents have rented out his room! I agree with 11:48:Professor Coleman for Duke President.

Duke Mom at 12:16--The suggestion to have Duke law students monitor the DA's office was NOT made by James Coleman, but by someone writing at the Duke Basketball Report website. Regardless of its origin, can you be more specific about why you think it's not a good idea (I haven't thought it through myself yet)?

Nice job as usual KC. Trying to keep track of all the actors and all the issues in this case requires great concentration and ability. Apparently you have both; your blogging has been most appreciated.

As you most ably point out the problems in and surrounding this case are many and almost too numerous to even try and list here. However, if you would allow me some latitude to get slightly off topic in your blog, we are not going to correct the problems of Durham’s racial tensions anytime soon; I’ve worked in Durham 30 years and they have only gotten worse over time. Duke’s liberal faculty slant again has been dominant for as long as I can remember (long before Karla came on board); certainly pre-Terry Sanford days. He just had infinitely better control of the faculty and the political process than Brodhead ever can hope to achieve (maybe Bill Friday will take the job for a short time?) Therefore, I would suggest concentrating on what is achievable in the near term, getting the rape/sexual assault/kidnapping/etc. charges dropped. Turning the case over to Roy’s folks, the AG not the Tarheels, isn’t going to fix the defective lineup or make a clearly mentally unstable woman sane. Just is not going to happen, so why even try? All these issues surrounding Duke and Durham are nothing but a diversion from the issues that can be corrected. The AG’s office can look at the 5,000+ fact filed pages, re-question the accused, re-question the accuser, re-question the defense attorneys, and to what end? They may get versions 5, 6 and 7 of the facts from CGM. They may even determine that the lineup was faulty, who cares? The JUDGE is going to make that call!

The February 5th motion to disallow the lineup evidence has been filed and scheduled to be heard. Short of reviewing the DPD files, nothing the AG’s office can do to “change those facts”. Even if the AG decides to argue in favor of the lineup it will most likely get thrown out, charges thereby dismissed, and leave the fixing of Duke and Durham to the politicians.

The only thing giving Roy’s folks time to re-do everything is to try and fix the poor perception of NC justice. I could give a rat’s a** about how NC justice is viewed. It is what it appears to be, broken; again let the politicians fight over how to fix it.

I do not think that Mr. Brodhead can effect the solution when he is a very large part of the problem. He is not part of the big world, but an academic who has lived in an ivory tower for his entire career. Make all of the recommendations you want, but I agree (as usual) with T'60- can't fix it until we get a new President. If Mr. Steel still wishes to prop up Mr. Brodhead, then he needs to be considered to be part of the problem, too.

This time, the President of Duke needs to be a leader who has walked the walk in the big world, not interacted for a lifetime with other faculty members using nifty little quotes.

"Innocent until proven guilty" is in the Constitution. "Proven innocent" is not. That simple phrase is enough to tell me that he is not of the caliber or of the right stuff to lead this University forward to the other side of this wreckage that he in part created. How long do we have to wait for the new person? Weeks? Months? We need a resignation and an interim. Mr. Coleman would do just fine as an interim, and probably as a permanent new guy.

All this writing is just more full page ads in the New York Times to "show" all of us. FACTOID: Blacks were at the forefront of this entire hoax; they piled on, threatened the parents in court, and are still with Nifong all the way. Blacks threaten, and sometimes perform, acts of violence on every campus in America; burning newspapers they don't like; invading class rooms whenever a bad grade is handed out, and so on. Broadhead is safe because the Blacks are with him and antagonizing the Blacks mean violence.

Then, as I've said many times before, when Duke basketball recruits start dropping away there will be sudden pretend action. What has happened at Duke can happen anywhere; well not anywhere, because there isn't a judicial gangster like Nifong just anywhere, but the faculty goons serve just as well.

What to do? Horowitz is an OK first step but I just don't think there is real anger at all this from either the Duke faculty or the Duke students, particularly the "Women's Studies" people.

"Applications for early admission to Duke University dropped by nearly 20 percent this year in the aftermath of the lacrosse scandal."

Yes, but regular applications were down only 3.3%, giving Duke its second largest applicant pool in history (largest was last years, of course).http://media.www.dukechronicle.com/media/storage/paper884/news/2007/01/10/News/Regular.Apps.See.3.3.Fall-2616517.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dukechronicle.com&MIIHost=media.collegepublisher.com

"When a fish rots, the organs in the gut go first. If you can't tell that a fish is rotting by the smell of it, you'll sure know when you cut it open and everything pours out -- when all the internal tissue loses its integrity and turns into liquid."

Yes, but regular applications were down only 3.3%, giving Duke its second largest applicant pool in history

The baby boomlet of of 1989 is now arriving and this is the pool that is applying for college admissions this year. Based on demographics alone, applications should have increased 2.5% over last year. Why the decrease at Duke?

I graduated from Duke when Terry Sanford was President. The reason that the Presidency worked under Terry was that he was a politician (former gov. of NC at the time) and knew how to bring together various factions in order to contribute to the greater good. Bob Steel (Duke Chairman of the Board of Trustees and former Vice Chair of Goldman Sachs) was a classmate of mine and a Durham native. He should be able to step back and take a look at the situation. Unfortunately, because he recruited Dick Broadhead (when Steel was Chair of the Search Committee to replace the retiring Nan Keohane), I don't believe he's capable of standing back (although his Goldman background should stand him in good stead for determining when the wrong person is in charge).

Broadhead came up through the academic ranks at Yale. He believes in the rights of the G88 to exercise their academic freedom. He's not a politician. He's not capable of bringing diverse groups together (although I guess he may be able to take credit for keeping Coach K when the Lakers were trying to hire him). Hillary Clinton (another Yalie) has better political skills than Broadhead.

There is no way that Duke (or any other academic institution in America that embraces tenure) can quickly replace the liberal left that tends to dominate the liberal arts faculty. The previous writers here are correct that the President has limited powers. Harvard has a seminar for new college presidents and they teach the new presidents that getting on the bad side of the faculty is a good way to lose your job. They also have some hilarious case studies in that seminar that contribute letters sent to new presidents from the faculty (and those presidents can't do anything about it other than work their way through the issue).

The writers who have said they won't let their kids go to Duke aren't going to find a different situation in any of 3,000 colleges in the U.S. that embrace tenure. Esquire in Maryland is right that institutions run by the Jesuits and other religious orders may keep a tighter rope on things, but the faculty can still create problems, particularly at the time for reaccreditation (usually every 10 years). Some of the Southern Christian universities have created problems for themselves with refusing to allow faculty the right of "free expression". The Bush administration and House Republicans were working on plans to substantially change tenure and accreditation, but they neglected to communicate effectively with disenfranchised citizens and now someone else is in charge of the House. Many Democrats are aligned with the liberal left faction in academia, so systemic changes in higher education calling for accountability won't be seen in my lifetime.

The reason that I would allow my children to attend Duke is that I believe I received a well-rounded education including learning and socializing with many talented classmates from around the country, many of whom I stay in touch with today. The network has been key for my ability to benchmark my career progress as well as maintain a great group of friends with common ideas and ideals. Very few of us identified with the liberal left. Most of us (including Bob Steel) chose to not take classes taught by the leftist faculty once we identified who they were. I hope that Duke doesn't regress because of this incident and I hope that someone in leadership takes a large step forward soon before the concerned few become a concerned mass.

Meanwhile, I continue to support the innocent lacrosse players and thank KC and others who have sullied forth and identified the hypocrisies and illegalities that have touched this case since the beginning. The only reason that would keep me from sending my kids to Duke would be the judicial system in the State of North Carolina which until recently has appeared no better than the system in effect during Reconstruction. Racism should play no part in our judicial system (I wish I could say that for the media, but our nation's freedom of speech laws are fairly unimpeachable). Hopefully, the AG's new team will review the case and dismiss the charges without merit or prejudice as they should have been last March. Meanwhile, I request that my fellow Duke alums reach out to Reade, Colin, and Dave and offer their assistance in job searches or grad school applications. The latter probably won't work until their names are cleared, but I trust that will be soon.

I'm still subscribed to Durham-Responds and am just amazed at the posts that still turn up there. I'm using an old email account which I only read once a week and am just catching up on that account. If you're over there, take a look at the post by Bryan Proffitt and just be amazed.

A famous quote goes as follows "Always tell the truth, there is less to remember."

This case brings that saying to the forefront. Politics aside, if Mr. Broadhead had worried less about his constiuents and more about what was right and wrong, he would not have to be doing the dance he is doing now. He needed to say right from the start, that he understands the seriousness of the charges, and that he does not condone underage drinking off campus, however, he also believes stronlgy in the "RULE OF LAW" that all parties are innocent until PROVEN guilty, and with that in mind, he will act accordingly. He MUST condemn the G88 statements as not helpful, and that their participation in rallies against potentially (though we know know certainly) innocent students cannot be tolerated. He must state that Duke University MUST strive at all costs, to perpetuate fairness, dignity and honor, it is these values that Professors need to demonstrate, after all, they are educating our children. He must say that Faculty who violate these principals should not be teaching at Duke.

He may inflame people by doing/saying these things, but it is simply stating the truth, and telling the truth should be a safe haven !!

Did anyone think he had a worried look on his face during the 60 minute interview ? I did.

Bryan Proffitt is a hip-hop society wannabe who uses anti-white racism as his entree to black acceptance.

Here's a quote:

"us white folks can end white supremacy. Tomorrow. We're the ones that hold it up. We're the ones who benefit from it. We're the ones who run the institutions and keep the resources that place, and maintain, the boot of oppression on the necks and souls of people of color worldwide. We're the ones who pretend to not even notice its existence. And if nobody ever shows us that we can choose otherwise, we're just going to continue on doing so. Why would we do anything else?"

He's playing to a crowd of his own choosing. You need not attend a performance.

(Duke law students monitoring Durham DA's office).regardless of its origin, can you be more specific about why you think it's not a good idea (I haven't thought it through myself yet)?

Duke law students may be just like Kim Curtis and other pseudo-science "community activists" (Duke law's biggest concern seem to be the well-being of captured Al-Qaida terrorists). If this is the case, having monitors like Kim Curtis is hardly an improvement. (I have no idea if Duke law students are real students or marxists/feminazi race-quota admitted IQ-challenged wackos.

"The only reason that would keep me from sending my kids to Duke would be the judicial system in the State of North Carolina which until recently has appeared no better than the system in effect during Reconstruction."

I wholeheartledly agree. I left the state over 2 decades ago. Not surprised by this case in NC. If anything good comes from this case, it will be the exposure of the rot in NC's judicial system. Hopefully , the parents of the LAX players have enough influence to reform the legal system in NC and also US. If not, the trend towards reverse immigration will accelerate. I read somwhere that 70% of the world's lawyers reside in the US.

How can the DOJ not get involved? The level of corruption here has to go WAY beyond this case...1. False Line ups2. Interviewing Students by Police in the dorms when they knew the men had counsel3. ADA helping the accuser change her story4. DNA evidence hiddden5. Fasle statements (among other things) by a DA6. NO transcripts of Grand Jury deliberations (I mean come on)7. Speedy Trial seems to be out the window in NC8. The illegal gag order9. failure to investigate the liars (excuse me, the accusers) story10. The obvious intimidation of the Taxi Driver11. The leniency of the 2nd dancer on another charge

I am sure there are more, but if this is not fixed, how could one ever be treated fairly in the Durham system.

There is a wide gap between Duke and Durham, as this case has made painfully clear. And as Professor James Coleman has made clear, if you can do what Nifong did to rich people, it's ten times easier to do it to poor ones.

Brodhead is a product of Yale, the most politically correct Ivy( I went there as well as another---the control by the radical left is astounding!). Brod appoints radicals as chairmpersons of committees that seek to change Duke into what radicals want it to be. The Lax hoax was a much-needed catalyst for "change".Brod is much more destructive of Duke in the long term than the Lax hoax because of the political correctness hyper-dosage that will come from the committees he has "radical-stacked".This is a great pity. What a moral weakling Brod is and I ,as a Duke grad, am very worried what Duke will be like after 8 more years of this man.

interesting developments from Missouri:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1767983/postsNow, armed with a formal complaint filed against Missouri State University, they are taking action.

A bill to ensure that intellectual diversity prevails at all of Missouri’s public higher education institutions has been filed in the state House. Among other things, it would require universities to report to a state board how schools are encouraging diversity through their selection of public speakers.

"It took a situation that became very public to finally say, ‘OK, enough is enough,’ " said Rep. Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, the bill’s sponsor. "It’s time to make sure that our students are guaranteed their rights to what they believe in and their free speech rights, and they are not intimidated in any way from being able to follow their own conscience in the classrooms or on the campus.Last fall, Brooker sued MSU in federal court contending a professor in the school of social work had given her poor grades because of her refusal to sign a letter supporting homosexual adoption. Her complaint said Frank Kauffman, her professor, and others in the department belittled her religious beliefs and unfairly challenged her ability to do social work because of them.

Brooker’s lawsuit said the faculty’s conduct "squelched her rights to engage in appropriate discussions of her theories, ideas and political and/or religious beliefs freely and openly." Brooker graduated from MSU in May.

The university settled the suit in November shortly after it was filed. The school agreed to pay Brooker’s legal fees and tuition for graduate school. It also cleared her official record of any demerits. Kauffman was reassigned to non-classroom duties and directed to meet weekly with a university associate provost. "

Something Duke and NC should adopt asap. Harassing students who don't share their marxists worldview seem to be the standard operating procedure in leftists ivory towers.

I just want to state that 60 min. mentioned one of the drugs that the FA is taking .. Seroquel. This is a very powerful drug that is given to people who suffer from psychotic disorders sush as schizophrenia.

She deals with the different personality disorders from which Crystal suffers, as well as talks about the medication used to treat them. Crystal surely is a mess, but Kathleen does a great job in taking apart the madness and making sense with it.

Who cares if Karla Holloway resigns from a committee at Duke? Didn't she previously complain that the additional committee work generated for her by the Duke LAX scandal was one of the things that made her yet another "victim" of the scandal? Perhaps resigning from one of her committees will give this perpetual "victim" a brief respite from her lifetime work of victimhood. As far as I'm concerned, this pseudo-intellectual racist can resign from everything at Duke (including her cushy and overpaid professor's job) -- and good riddance to her!

Bill: I read that. Interesting. Remember the part where she said she wanted to go back into the house because there was "more money to be made?" She then is stumbling around ato the back door looking for her "shoe" and talking through the back door?

Did she receive a giggle through the door at some sort of sexual proposition? Sorry, that question has to be asked, considering the volume of additional DNA they found inside and on the accuser.

Now, this I could definitely see. Did she try to make some "more" money, and get coldly laughed at by the players in the house? Something like "Are you serious? Get lost." Being a former lacrosse player myself, I can see that sort of reaction from lacrosse players in this situation when faced with a wierd, drugged up "exotic dancer."

Eckelt may have provided the final bit of motive. Perhaps the accuser was angry because the player would NOT have any relations with her. That she did NOT earn that extra money from them. That revenge was in play from that point forward.

The city's yard rubbish landfill caught fire a few months ago and burned for about two weeks. Turns out they had been warned by the state to treat the compost differently or it might catch fire. Predictably, everyone pointed to everyone else to try to pass the buck.

On the lead in the water, the city decided to use some new kind of chemical in the water. It was supposed to improve the water but what it did was react with lead solder in older homes to make lead leach into the tap water after years of dormancy. Great move. The water department tried to hush it up and then sent incomplete test results to the state that downplayed the problem. The remedy? The water department told people to run their water for at least three minutes before using for cooking or drinking, thus increasing everyone's water bill.

Your list of attorneys to harrass doesn't appear current. Freda Black hasn't worked in the Durham DA's office for a couple of years. She's with a firm in Raleigh now.

Also, expecting moral outrage from civil servants -- much less expecting them to quit their jobs -- hardly seems realistic. We're not exactly talking about the legal profession's best and brightest here. Although you're right; they should bail only to avoid being sprayed with Nifong's innards when he's fed through the chum grinder.

GS: I like to keep things simple as well, but this case has not offered simplicity. It has shown a pattern of hiding from obvious truths.

I think what I am saying lays bare the real reason Nifong wanted to hide the DNA evidence. It provides her motive for wanting to reenter the house. The other explanations don't wash, because this evidence could not be used to show she had sexual relations with other men standing alone. That would violate rape shield laws. It explains why he would not want to talk to the Defednants' attorneys. That provides motive for her to go back into the house. It would defeat his allegations, espcially as it was corroborated.

No, I think this is all starting to fall into place, and I suspect something along these lines will be revealed to the new special prosecutors shortly. Do I also think her wish not to go to jail is at work as well? Yes, but you also have to remember you are not dealing with someone thinking in terms of a parallel line.

Well, I think the real reason for hiding the DNA evidence is that it proves that the boys could not have touched her. If old DNA shows up on tests, then the explanations for the missing DNA (wiping away or bad sampling) fail. Rape shield laws have nothing to do with that, as those laws cannot override the constitutional right to present a defense.

Thats my only my opinion, but that was immediat reaction to the new data, that it made it impossible to theorize why the DNA wasn;t on her.

I think that Maryland Esquire is on to something, although I have not heard any of the players make such a statement. The thing to keep in mind is that Nifong did not investigate ANYTHING because the story he wanted to push as the Official Rape Version was so full of holes that if he did any investigation at all, it would fall apart.

It was a situation in which he did not want the facts to contradict what he was insisting was true. What is interesting to me is that all through this episode, he has relied heavily upon conspiracy theories and the juxtaposition of events that on their face are not possible or even probable.

He did not object to Victoria Peterson's claim that Duke University "tampered" with the DNA samples. He was willing to throw out the possibility that the players "tampered" with the time stamps on the photos. He was willing to throw out the possibility that everyone wore condoms, although space suits would have been necessary to avoid leaving DNA on dear Crystal.

And so on and so on. At every turn, he relies upon conspiracies and improbable events, yet tries to then spin those things into the Actual and Factual Account. This is the height of dishonesty, and he knew it, and everyone else knew it, too.

For example, they try to say that the "missing shoe" picture was actually a photo of when she first arrived at 11:10 p.m. What about the time stamp? Well, the person who took the picture tampered with it, and all others.

Nifong offers no proof of tampering, just another proposition that he then spins into yet another version of "the truth." The guy is a sick and evil liar.

Terry Sanford bitter? Show me where there's any bitterness in this life...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Sanford

Terry Sanford would have had the political clout to squash this thing back in March. In contrast, Brodhead spent his entire life inside the ivory tower. In a real-world situation like this give me a former G-man and paratrooper every time.

6:17 - you are spot on about Terry Sanford. He would have nipped this in the bud. We used to tease him and call him "Uncle Terry", but make no mistake - we knew he had the interests of Duke and its students at heart. Note also that Ken Pye was Chancellor at the time, and while he would have been disappointed in the behavior of the lacrosse team, he would have dealt with it in the proper light - as a university disciplinary matter - and sure as heck would have defended the rights of the students in a criminal proceeding. RIP both Senator Sanford and Ken Pye - Duke became great because of your values - something conspicuously lacking now.

To the JD's, would not the DNA evidence also be admissible to disprove the AV's allegation of injury from the alleged attacks by the Duke 3 because the DNA evidence would document numerous recent sexual activities and resultant bruising, etc.? Thus, DA Nifong would want that evidence to be concealed.

"The case is over. Your question does assume importance, however, in relation to bringing charges against Miss Precious.

Fellow posters: do you believe "60 Minutes" interviewed the families before the dismissal as part of a PC agenda?

Wouldn't you agree that the parents would have been more forthcoming about Precious as thug and the viciousness of the G88's prejudgment of the boys?

Any opinions?

Also, does anyone know if anything is happening behind the scenes to oust President Brodhead?

Thanks.

Duke Mom

6:48 PM

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Bringing charges against Precious? She has no morality, credibility, or money. To what end would it serve to bring charges? She's a disgrace and everyone knows it.

I don't think that 60 minutes had a PC agenda. They're not that smart. Actually, I thik I'd give them a B on this one.

Lastly, NO ONE knows what's happening behind the scenes with respect to Broadhead (except for Steele and other trustees). We can guess, but it comes down to expediency and protection of the Duke brand.

Broadhead is in a no win situation. He did the right thing bagging the lacrosse season. My daughter was there last spring, it would have been ugly if the team had shown up on the field. The coach is responsible for the players, on and off the field. He had to go, lest we forget the famous "skinning" email? At the same time, the Athletic Director, Joe Aleva, should have been canned too. This is a major cluster...

Nifong may have thought the rape story was real (at first), based on second hand reports. He jumped on it for political reasons. He figured the 3 players said they did not touch her, the DNA would show who did, and he could add or drop players based on the DNA report. In any case he should have done more investigations, but the election was close.

He could not trust that a judge would rule that there was sufficent evidence to charge the Lax players, so he went the grand jury route.

But...

When the DNA report came back with no DNA, plus 4 or 5 other males DNA, he knew she lied.

A investigator looking for the truth would have asked :

Who's DNA is this, the real attackers?

Did she lie about her sexual history the week of the attack?

How could there be no DNA of the players be there when she described in great details all of the sexual attacks?

What did Nifong do:

Question her, no he disregard the evidence and help hide it from the defense. At that point he knew he was railroading the players.

Nifong has since been trying to fit a square peg into a small round hole.

5:46 - Terry Sanford is the only reason why Duke is a top ranked college today. (It certainly wasn't before he got there.) And hiring well-known liberal faculty--the 88 Morons not included--is part of what put the place on the map.

If you'd prefer to go back to the days of Duke being a good-but-not-great Southern private school (a la Furman or Rhodes), there 's a huge alumni base that would beg to differ--and I'm part of it. I'm also Southern and lefty, so don't tar the entire liberal base with your conservative brush. If you think most liberals view this case as anything less than a travesty of justice, you have only to look to the parents of the lacrosse players for a counterpoint--all of them are good Northeastern liberals.

Classic liberalism demands social justice for all, regardless of skin color, economic class or gender. The people insinuating that on the basis of past wrongs there's some justice in the malicious prosecution of the lacrosse players are not liberals; they're fascists.

Good points all around. Actually, we see some interesting divides in how people look at this case. The hard left really does not need facts, only class and race, so the players are guilty because of who they are not because of what they did (or, more accurately did not do). Yolanda Carrington's marxist screed, and the junk from the G88 is at that pole.

The Religious Right sees the young men as a bunch of drunkards and hooligans who, while being wrongfully charged, are receiving a rough justice. The top evangelical magazine, World, has pointedly avoided this story because of the stripper-sex-drinking angle.

Many of the civil liberties groups like the NAACP, the ACLU, the SPLC (which actually is NOT a civil liberties organization), and the Innocence Project have ranged from outright cravenness (NAACP and Innocence Project) to indifference (ACLU). However, liberals, some conservatives, and libertarians have jumped on this one, and so we have a very interesting mix.

So, 7:55 PM, keep on posting and spreading the word. There will be a large party in which the main course will be Grilled Fong, and lots of people of different races, creeds, and political persuasions are invited. (If you are Vegans, then we will have a vegetarian dish that will be a strong substitute.)

Let me just second 755's comments. I continue to be disappointed that the same commenters on this blog who rightly object to the way in which the Group of 88 engaged in group-think stereotypes about male lacrosse players are more than willing to do the same in return to:

1. liberals2. the Duke faculty (outside of econ)3. college faculty in general4. college presidents5. the MSM

Yes, each of these groups has their problems, but that doesn't mean that they are to be dismissed as a whole. Funny to hear all the MSM bashers suddenly think Stahl did a good job (which she did). Maybe, just maybe, it's all a bit more complicated than good guys and bad guys.

Yes, Terry would have done the right thing. He was a politician, and a good one. But I give credit to the 1986 basketball team for vaulting Duke into the top tier of universities. I was in grad school there in the early '80s and Duke's reputation and visibility soared after Alarie, Bilas, et. al., acquitted themselves so well at press conferences. I'll never forget one columnist who wrote: "One day the Duke players will write a book about this experience, and if they're lucky the Louisville players will be able to read it."

While a flier featuring photographs of Duke's lacrosse players began appearing around campus, the university's president, Richard H. Brodhead, urged a group of students Wednesday morning to learn from the controversy surrounding the team.

In the afternoon, the players returned to the practice field even though their season has been suspended until authorities conclude an investigation into a woman's allegations that three lacrosse players sexually assaulted her March 13 at a private party.

In the evening, several hundred people marched in a long-planned Take Back the Night rally, held annually to raise awareness of sexual assault against women. The marchers chanted, ''Out of the dark and into the street, we won't be raped, we won't be beat,'' as they walked across the campus to the Duke chapel.

The Durham police, meanwhile, issued a plea for anyone with information about the woman's allegations to come forward. The flier, distributed by a campus group and containing pictures of 43 of the 47 players on the lacrosse roster, said that the rest of the photographs could not be retrieved because the athletic department's Web site had taken them down Monday.

The accuser, a black student at a nearby college who agreed to dance at the private party, told the police that she had been assaulted by three white Duke lacrosse players in a bathroom of the residence of two of the team's captains.

The appeal for information appeared to be aimed at an unidentified woman who called 911 about half an hour before a supermarket security guard called on behalf of the accuser. At 12:53 a.m. on March 14, the female caller told the 911 operator that she was passing the house where the party was going on and was cursed at by at least one man standing in front of it.

According to a transcript of the call, she said that ''a white guy by the Duke wall'' had yelled a racial epithet at her and a black friend, and that ''I'm just so angry I didn't know who to call.''

The woman said she lived in the neighborhood and gave the address on North Buchanan Boulevard where the party was held.

''We don't know who she is and would like to talk to her,'' Kammie Michael, a spokeswoman for the Durham Police Department, said.

While Michael acknowledged that the police had searched a second residence housing lacrosse players, Michael B. Nifong, the Durham County district attorney, said he believed investigators were building a solid case that disputed the team's contention that no sexual assault had occurred.

He said a nurse who examined the accuser had found physical trauma as well as ''emotional behavior consistent with going through a traumatic experience.''

''We have reason to believe not everything in the students' statements was completely accurate,'' Nifong said. ''They denied any sex acts took place, and I don't believe that is the case.''

But he said he did not necessarily expect the DNA samples taken last Thursday from the team's 46 white players to match evidence taken from the accuser.

''I would not be surprised if condoms were used,'' he said.

While the public outcry in this college town of 210,000 residents over this incident was channeled into the Take Back the Night march, signs of uneasiness were everywhere. The community is disturbed by the violent nature of the alleged attack and its racial overtones. The accuser is black, a mother and a student at North Carolina Central; the Duke lacrosse team is virtually all white.

Many are angry about the team's lack of cooperation and the university's seemingly tepid response. Nifong said his investigators would soon interview university administrators about what team members might have told them about the incident.

''I do not believe that such conversations are privileged,'' he said. ''Of course, others might disagree.''

Brodhead met with students Wednesday after they protested outside the Tuesday news conference at which he announced the suspension of the lacrosse team's season.

Among the students were members of a group called the Concerned Citizens at Duke University, which passed out a statement saying that ''the university is cultivating and sustaining a culture of privilege and silence that allows inappropriate behavior to plague the campus.''

Brodhead told the students that Duke ''can't promise you there will never be instances of disgusting and disturbing things.'' But he reiterated his position that he would not pass judgment until the police investigation was concluded. No charges have been filed against any of the lacrosse players.

''If you were at a university where the president meted out punishment based on what he reads in the newspaper, it would be a pretty dangerous place,'' said Brodhead, according to an account from Duke's communication department. The meeting was closed to reporters.

In the afternoon, the lacrosse players returned to practice, knowing that their season was in limbo and that their character was under scrutiny.

Nifong said that 15 players on the team had previous minor infractions, involving offenses like public intoxication, but that he had received no reports or evidence of their being involved in other sexual assaults, nor had any other accusers come forward.

Michael, the police spokeswoman, said officers had been called to the white ranch house on North Buchanan Boulevard on four previous occasions dating to September for vehicle abandonment, vehicle vandalism and two noise complaints.

''The incidents that you may be referring to all were disciplined by our coaches,'' Joe Alleva, the Duke athletic director, said Monday when asked about the team's behavior. ''You have young people 18 to 22 years old; sometimes they're going to make some bad decisions.''

Friends and former coaches of several players contacted Wednesday expressed surprise at the allegations surrounding the team.

The Rev. Luke L. Travers, headmaster of Delbarton School in Morristown, N.J., described the five alumni who are members of the Duke lacrosse team as good athletes with the intelligence to succeed at Duke, a university with high academic standards.

The Duke lacrosse roster, which includes 26 players from New York, New Jersey and Connecticut high schools, is composed mostly of students from the affluent suburbs in the mid-Atlantic region.

''These are wonderful boys from wonderful families,'' said Travers, who said he had spoken to many of their families. ''We're all worried for them.''

Robert C. Ekstrand, a lawyer who is representing many of the team members, declined comment Wednesday. Like their sons, many parents have refused to elaborate on the allegations.

''It's unfortunate, but it will all be resolved positively very shortly,'' said Philip Seligmann, the father of Reade Seligmann, a sophomore on the team, outside his home in Essex Fells, N.J.

I keep readng that Brodhead has no control over the faculty and other university presidents are in the same position. If Brodhead were a leader, a man of influence, and could speak forcefully for what is right I suspect that the professors, students, and members of the community with a true moral compass would stand along side Broadhead and support Duke. Instead he has hidden from his responsibilities to protect innocent students and the reputation of Duke. Brodhead should be having weekly "fireside" chats with students and faculty, he should be publicly demanding changes to the activities of the DPD and the City. He should be an advocate for justice and demanding better from the State of North Carolina. Instead he has hidden from view and made lame excuses that he believed the authorities. Other University Presidents for major state schools have influence and believe me they use it, so I can not believe that a strong president at a top school like Duke, woudn't also have a strong influence. Brodhead isn't a strong person and appears to have little moral conviction. Duke has a coward in the President's office. What will the alumni do ?

Classic liberalism demands social justice for all, regardless of skin color, economic class or gender. The people insinuating that on the basis of past wrongs there's some justice in the malicious prosecution of the lacrosse players are not liberals; they're fascists.

But then, what is social justice?

Everyone can have a 10,000 sq ft house with a Merc in the driveway?

Everyone can have a PhD and a $300,000 job?

Nobody ever needs to deal with troublesome news like they are not actually capable of being President of the US or CEO of that Fortune 100 company?

7:55 says.. If you think most liberals view this case as anything less than a travesty of justice, ...

Well, actually, I do. Are you saying the MSM outlets CNN, the NYT, the Wash Post, both papers in Durham,etc are not dominated by liberals?? What national liberal politician in what state can get elected wwithout a solid block Black vote??

We wouldnt be where we are today if not for the "liberals" , especially those who run things in Norh Carolina. While there hasnt been a surplus of outspokenness from Republican politicians, there has been some (in NC: Jones, and a couple state legislators)

So, anyway, when do you think the Old Grey Lady, the Paper of Record, the old Liberal workhorse of publications; the NYT !! will speak out for due process and justice in this case? How about never?

7:08 I COMPLETELY disgree. Brodhead was NOT in a no win situation. There was NO reason to cancel the season when he did. The cancellation signaled to the world that Duke was convinced the team was guilty. All he had to do was wait for the DNA results that proved their innocence. And no, no one has forgotten the e-mail. Again, another example of Brodhead's rush to judgment. He suspended Ryan and fired the coach, BEFORE the discovery that the e-mail was a parody of American Psycho. (required reading in at least three Duke's classes - not that I approve of the book - I find it a disturbing piece). Ryan's suspension and the coach's firing are further proof of Brodhead reacting to emotion rather than waiting for facts - a dangerous quality in a leader. The men had told him there was NO rape, yet he CHOSE to believe the DA over his own students! Brodhead could have suspended the season until the DNA results came back. Once it was obvious this was a hoax, the season could have resumed. Instead he played to the radical left - allowed professors to intimidate the players in class, allowed protests that demanded castrating the players, and to this day has never condemned the outrageous conduct of some faculty members. (To the contrary, he recently condemned the hateful e-mails the Group of 88 have received. Strangely, he has yet to issue the same condemnation regarding the death threats issued to the lacrosse players.) I made NUMEROUS calls to the school because my daughter was terrified about the NBPP marching on campus. Incredibly, it wasn't until the day before the march, the administration announced the NBPP wouldn't be allowed on campus. The only person I felt empathy for was the adminstrative assistant in Brodhead's office. Evidently she had been receiving frantic calls all week from outraged parents. The administration failed miserably to gain control of the situation. I absolutely REFUSE to forgive Brodhead and company for the fear my daughter felt on campus because of their reckless behavior. They did NOT provide adequate security not only for the lax players, but for the student body in general. My daughter was simply shocked at the behavior of the faculty and administration. They CONTRIBUTED to the chaos rather than choosing to act as calm, reasonable adults.My daughter knows some of the younger lacrosse players and felt the media depictions of the team were grossly distorted - yet not one person at Duke stood up for these boys, but rather they ran for cover and threw the team to the wolves. I predict the university will be in for large civil suits. If it takes large settlements to ensure the future protection of Duke students' civil rights, then so be it. These families deserve compensation for this entire, dreadful affair. By the way, after watching Brodhead on 60 minutes last night, it is apparent he has learned NOTHING from this entire affair. It is painful to watch him stutter and stammer in his attempts to justify his actions of the past 10 months. Honestly, I think my 15 year old could present a stronger argument than this man.

In the past 12 months, the NYT has run several high profile articles (page A-1) highlighting due process violation concerns/issues in immigration courts. Immigration courts are where many aliens seek relief from deportation.

It is interesting to read that Nifong -- clearly contrary to what he stated in seeking the court order requiring DNA samples of all the white LAX players -- already was backing off the DNA route. And this is one of the areas for which he is in trouble with the Bar.

This NY Times piece clearly is what one would call "helicopter journalism" in which reporters drop in to a place, join the pack, and then depend upon stereotypes for their background information. Of course, since most journalists at the NY Times are leftists, this one has a leftist slant.

I also find it interesting to see how Brodhead at the beginning was trying to be reasonable, but soon caved into the G88 and other pressures. Had he stood his ground, he would be looking very good right now. What might have been....

"The people insinuating that on the basis of past wrongs there's some justice in the malicious prosecution of the lacrosse players are not liberals; they're fascists."

7:55 PM, Bill Anderson, or anyone who wants to jump in-

I've been wondering about the issue of blaming current generations for past wrongs and the more dangerous consequences that might have historical examples, such as the scapegoating of all Jewish people in Europe by Hitler and many others. It seems to me that the true purpose of placing blame for past wrongs (especially in this case in Durham) is one of scapegoating, rather than the noble pretense of actually reaching towards constructive reparations the lead to a truly better situation. Any takers? Thanks in advance.

Duke University officials, from the campus police to the highest administrative levels, failed to grasp the seriousness of an accusation that white lacrosse players raped a black woman at a party in March and did not respond quickly enough, said an outside report released yesterday.

The report, by William G. Bowen, a former president of Princeton University, and Julius Chambers, a former director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Inc., cited ''a gap in communications that is extraordinary,'' noting that the Duke police force had failed to alert administration officials to the racial component of the case.

Two lacrosse players were indicted last month on charges of first-degree forcible rape, first-degree sexual offense and kidnapping. Their lawyers have said they are not guilty. The district attorney has said he is also gathering evidence to indict a third person.

The report also criticized administration officials as being too heavily influenced by Durham police reports that the woman ''kept changing her story and was not credible'' and that ''this will blow over.'' The review added that the university should have conducted its own investigation.

It also said that the senior leadership of the university -- five white men, an Asian-American man and a white woman -- had been ''handicapped by its own limited diversity'' in responding.

The university president, Richard H. Brodhead, who commissioned the report, said in a telephone news conference that he was grateful for the ''candid criticism'' and planned to give the report careful attention.

Mr. Brodhead said that he planned to review communications and that all the personnel involved in the case would be assessed in their annual reviews.

The case has generated enormous attention worldwide because of its volatile mix of race, class, alcohol, university athletics, elitism and town-gown relations.

The report applauded Dr. Brodhead's ''personal commitment to address all of the issues'' and found no effort to cover up the incident or to deceive anyone. But it found problems with how the investigation, involving a student at nearby North Carolina Central University who had been hired to dance at a party for the lacrosse team, had been handled from the beginning.

The two experts said that although the Duke police knew that the woman, who had been taken to the emergency room of Duke University Hospital, is black and that the players she said had assaulted her are white, ''information about her race and about racial aspects of the case did not reach key administrators'' including Dr. Brodhead until March 24, 10 days after the party.

The report said Dr. Brodhead did not even learn of the problem until he read about it in the student newspaper, almost a week after it occurred.

Dr. Chambers, who was chancellor of North Carolina Central University from 1993 to 2001, said in the news conference that one aspect that most disturbed him was that Duke officials had not looked deeper into the accusations.

''It pointed out the need for being more careful about reviewing complaints when they come from minorities and others,'' he said. ''You don't just discount a complaint because of who made it.''

A spokeswoman for the Durham Police Department, Kammie Michael, said the department could not comment because the investigation was continuing.

Paul H. Haagen, a Duke law professor and the chairman of the Duke academic council, said he was puzzled by the suggestion that Duke might have responded differently if people had realized that the woman was black.

''I'm not sure that somehow or other we should have responded differently if it had been a white woman,'' Professor Haagen said.

Dr. Bowen, president of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in New York, said in an e-mail message, ''If the racial aspect of the situation had been understood early on, that should have sent off alerts re: the potential of the situation to raise or re-raise some deep-seated issues, especially in a community such as Durham.''

Dr. Brodhead took issue with parts of the report. He noted, for example, that the reviewers said Duke should have been alert to the potential for more problems when the Durham police asked to search the e-mail records of one player. But, he said, had Duke looked into student e-mail accounts, it ''would have been regarded as tampering with the investigation.''

Sue Wasiolek, the assistant vice president for student affairs and dean of students, who was the person notified by the Duke police about the incident late in the day after the party, said that she thought the review was fair and accurate, but that ''people reading it should be reminded that it is a look backward.'' Ms. Wasiolek called that ''a much easier way to evaluate actions than when they are happening.''

to Theman Is there any proof that happened ? There sure is LOT of proof it did not. Only someone with zero common sense could come to your conclusion. Of course, maybe it was actually 5 perverts, the ones who deposited in/on her. DNA is incredibly powerful...

Just a note to let you know I was able to go back and read your post to me on the "Coleman Reaction" thread. Thanks.

It's been a busy weekend, yet I tried to make it to KC's place yesterday but was too tired to sift through all the new threads.

About your post: Very coincidental that Hitchens is a favorite of yours as well. Yes, I remember his appearances on "Hardball". No one is able to talk over others the way Chris Matthews does--except Hitch. LOL!

And it was visibly irritating to Matthews. Hitchens also does Bill Maher's HBO show on occasion. A few months ago, he was defending GWB against the rabid Lefties and he (Hitchens) gave the audience the finger when they booed him.

That was a first.

Agreed that no one can match him except William F. Buckley. I don't see Buckley around very often since he's gotten so old. In all honesty, Hitchens still can't touch Buckley.....but he has time.

What I adore so much about him is that devilish quality he has.....along with his stunningly dry wit. His putdowns are like cold blue steel......sweet fire. :>)

It is said that Buckley doesn't even have to edit his columns after he writes them. That's how good he's always been. Imagine just sitting down for a few minutes and writing a brilliant column and it's done! No need for a rewrite. No need for corrections!

Hitchens, on the other hand, is very sensual and flirtatious.....in a subtle way. What he lacks in physical perfection, he more than makes up for when he speaks. I went to a booksigning of his a few years ago, and after his lecture we had quite a long exchange.....as he spent half the time looking at my cleavage. LOL!!!

He's a brilliant man......yet not afraid to insult the hell out of anyone. I love it!

It would be great to hear his commentary on Nifong. Can you imagine?

Finally, IMO one reason he doesn't appear on MSNBC as often as before is because of an appearance on "Scarborough Country" when he was a bit smashed. Ha!

He has a reputation for loving his cocktails---and who doesn't? But unlike the average imbiber, when he's under the glass his acerbic wit and brilliant metaphor become even richer.

Anyway, poor Joe Scarborough just wasn't up for Hitchens that night and he cut his mike.

It was hilarious. The expression of exasperation on Scarborough's face was worth it all.

For those who do not live in NC and believe that wikipaedia, is the truth about Mr Sanford.

Get a life. He lost to Lauch Faircloth, a Democrat turned GOP, who had a blood feud with him. He never gave it up. He never missed a chance to bad mouth and abuse any GOP elected official. He is what we call a Blue Dog Democrat. He'd vote for a dog before he'd vote GOP. Corrupt? Well, that is another thread that will take days, weeks to finish.

Here is the point, If saint Terry was president of Duke now, he'd have Nifungu up for congress.

He was a TOTAL ASSH*OLE. How do I really feel. Don't get me started.

Sorry, he was grandfatherly looking and you young Dukies probably thought he was a great guy. I'll be nice, you wouldn't want your inheritance in his hands.

I believe in equality of opportunity, not equality of condition, which is what you are implying. No, not everyone can have a PhD and make 300K a year. But I would hope that people with the requisite ability would be given the opportunity to try to do so regardless of class, race or gender. There's a reason why Duke offers financial aid, and it's not just because they're good liberals. Conservative schools do that as well. If they don't, they're not recruiting the best and the brightest; they're recruiting the best and the brightest of those whose families can afford a $40K/year education and happen to fit a certain demographic--a much smaller subset.

And 8:03 - you can cherry-pick media outlets all you want, but horrendous reporting by the New York Times does not make for a liberal-driven scandal. If liberal bias were the problem, you wouldn't have MSNBC, 60 Minutes, New York Magazine, Slate, etc.--the latter two of whom are far more liberal than the New York Times--defending the lacrosse players from the start. Perhaps you missed that because you don't intentionally read liberal publications. There are good journalists and there are bad journalists, and with very few exceptions, most of the major outlets who jumped to cover the story because they thought the accuser was telling the truth are now just as happily covering Nifong's misconduct. (See CNN, the Washington Post, every pub you cited with the possible exception of the New York Times.) Sensationalism knows no ideological bounds. Just ask conservative commentator and Duke-lacrosse-basher Nancy Grace, who has been among the worst. If you were right, none of the so-called 'liberal' outlets would still be covering the story now that the tide has turned. And yet they are. Because it's a story.

Note that the Bowen report gives you some idea of the reigning PC environment on campus, which is 180 degrees opposite from KC's recommendations, which therefore have not a snowball's chance in hell of being enacted. "Campus Culture Initiative" is just a code word for more "privileging" of minorities, more race consciousness in decision making, just like "diversity" doesn't really mean diversity, it means more blacks and hispanics (but not more Asians)and "racism" is something only white people can practice. So a CCI that looks into anti-white bias on the faculty is an impossibility.

Note also that initial reading of the Durham police department (before Nifong got his hands on the case) was entirely correct - CGM ''kept changing her story and was not credible''. As for blowing over, in the normal course a false accusation by a whore would be expected to "blow over" but then others got their hands on the case.

9:57's last paragraph is right on the money. Now that the lax players are the victims, the media will come to their side, left or right. The media wants a story, especially one that gives voice to the underdog. That's why they sided with the AV to start, and now have switched. Politics drives who they see as the victim at the start, but from then on, it's about selling the product. And the product is a story.

.."the Duke police knew that the woman..is black and that the players she said had assaulted her are white, ''information about her race and about racial aspects of the case did not reach key administrators"

On MLK, let's congratulate these Officers for their being color blind on the issue.

Durham City Manager Patrick Baker, acting as de facto police chief was told within 24 hours of the racial dynamics and over the next 2 weeks took to the internet to proclaim its racial dimension on Durham listservs.

He also, as we know, "reinterviewed" individual police officers when the hoax started to unravel (due to the leak of a correct Duke PD report undermining CGM's credibility) so that the original police reports from the scene were spiked in favor of the Himan/Gottlieb fabrications.

As we look back at those first few days, indeed we see a number of things that the report missed:

1. The police were NOT taking the allegations seriously, as they KNEW Crystal Mangum and she was changing her story;2. None of the facts fit the claims.

The story got legs because of Nifong and his desire to get elected. As we look at how the investigation went, we see that literally every step that usually is taken was ignored, and the "investigation" that actually took place was a sham -- and the participants KNEW it was a sham. They covered their tracks by lying, but now those lies are being uncovered.

Something else needs to be said. This case is extraordinary only because of what we know NOW. In most cases where there is prosecutorial misconduct, we find it out after the fact. However, just because much has been uncovered now does not mean there is no more to come. My sense is that the defense has MUCH more that is going to make Nifong look even worse -- if that is possible.

Have to agree with you about Terry Sanford. He is yet another politician who is touted far beyond the reality of his actual worth.

BTW....I think you meant "yellow dog Democrat". No?

I have never followed the history of Terry Sanford beyond the surface; however, one thing that I know about him is nauseating. IMO, how someone handles personal aspects of their lives.....regarding finances, etc......tells more than anything their character.....especially someone like Sanford who always had a free ride as far as healthcare was concerned.

Well.......in Chapel Hill there is something called the Dental Faculty Practice. It is associated with the dental school of UNC-CH; however, it is a private practice and even a bit more expensive than the regular dentist's office.

I go there, and know several people well enough to have conversations off the cuff. Several years before Sanford died, he went there to get some dental work done. Everyone now knows that dental hygiene is closely aligned with potential heart trouble.

If you do not floss regularly.....keep your gums healthy and clean...etc.....bacteria can get into the blood stream and damage the heart.....(if there's a doctor in the house, perhaps they can explain with more accuracy.)

One of the hygenists said that Sanford's dental hygiene was so poor that they had a difficult time cleaning his teeth.

Subsequently, when he developed a heart ailment, he tried to sue them and blame them for his filthy mouth and what resulted.

10:33 PM Bill Anderson:COY (Comment of the Year)!!The only truth from the investigators got erased from DPD communication tapes. The initial officer's checking 10-24 (assignment completed from the call) she is just drunk.

What a FANTASTIC idea! - to create a panel of Duke Law students to work as 'overseers' in the DA's office. I think it's utterly brilliant. It would certainly give the 'everyday' Durham resident (at least ones in the judicial system) some connection to Duke.

I see the crack pipes are out and smoking.....

Along with law students "overseeing" DAs and members of the Bar, how about we have Duke engineering students overseeing professional engineers bridge repairs and intervening when they think their book knowledge is better, and med students ensuring doctors and nurses are doing their jobs right.

And I can think of few things less likely to engender warm feelings in Durham residents that Duke law students are "overseeing" the judicial process to usually, as cases go - to better bust and fine some Durham resident running afoul of the law.

No, if Duke law students have any utility as wannabe lawyers, in the Duke hoax aftermath, it would be as advocates for cleaning up the mess at Duke itself and ensuring Duke students are treated fairly in a safe and respectful environment by Durham residents, Duke employees, and Durham cops. For the whole time this case has gone on, other than Prof Coleman, Duke Law has collectively had their thumb up their ass.

What are the odds of the board of trustees taking action against Brodhead for the moral cowardice he's displayed in leading the university through this?How does one reach the Duke trustees to advocate such an action?What if anything has Coach K done publicly or behind the scenes in support of the lax team?

January 6, 1964, was a long day for Martin Luther King Jr. He spent the morning seated in the reserved section of the Supreme Court, listening as lawyers argued New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, a landmark case rising out of King's crusade against segregation in Alabama. The minister was something of an honored guest: Justice Arthur Goldberg quietly sent down a copy of Kings account of the Montgomery bus boycott, "Stride Toward Freedom," asking for an autograph. That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit ***--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!"

One thing that this disturbing affair has brought into stark relief for me is the extent to which there is a conscious and coordinated manipulation of people's worst fears, of basest biologically-programmed emotional responses (like tribalism, us/them division, and sense of injustice), to build up political power bases. Many people are vulnerable to this sort of exploitation and it seems to be all too easy to conjure rage and votes in this way, especially with the aid of the press, departments of scholars working to construct arguments and indoctrinate the next generation, and so many others, working over generations. The base builds. Good intentions are subverted in a perversion of hypocrisy and goodwill is willfully destroyed.

Rather than solving problems such as racism, poverty, and crime, I think there are those who would work to have a large and growing population of voters who are dependent on government checks, receive substandard education, and far too often bring children into the world in situations where there is very little opportunity for escape. This is primarily because there are advantages to being raised in an environment where there are good role models, where the cultural norm is still two parents, and where there are expectations of self-reliance. However, if an alternative explanation is provided, this reinforces the whole sham.

In essence, many people are being used -- fooled into giving votes and power to those who do not act in their interests, swindled into acting against their own good.

The established structure works against any would-be leader who steps out of line (think of Bill Cosby) and kills any internal corrective actions, while shouting down any external criticism.

Normally I'm not in favor of mercenary lawyers suing everyone involved for every alleged slight.......but in the case of anyone going after Duke University for the comments and actions of the gang of 88 or Brodhead, I'll make an exception.

If I wind up on such a jury, Duke's entire endowment won't be enough to cover the damages I would award.

First, the parents aren't Northeastern Liberals, provable thanks to Opensecrets. The families have 1 liberal donation, to a New York Congresswoman from Rae Evans (lobbying related? old friends?) and one RINO donation (Olympia Snow, Evans family again).

Dave Sr gave money to a variety of people (token amounts, look to be minor fundraising dinners) as well as substantial ammounts to the Reed Smith PAC (his law firm, where he managing partner of the lobbying practice). Reed has given money to the IRL and the republican senate committee, but just doesn't show up in Open Secrets, despite the Evans' donations and the work they're engaged in.

Mr. Finnerty gave money to the Bond Traders PAC, which isn't exactly on Nancy Pelosi's Christmas card list. I'm sure they do keep up well with certain left wing pols, but that's just to try and keep the hometeam sweet and get Spitzer off their backs.

Classical Liberalism is a great and glorious thing. Unfortunately, if you declare yourself of the Left you can not shield yourself with its morality nor precepts. Classical Liberalism is the philosophy of Washington, Adam Smith, Benjamin Franklin... it opposes government power, government intrusion, and believes in free people, free markets, and a tiny state.

"Liberalism" is nothing but a stolen cloak used by the left to make their thievery sound better, as you are doing Steve. Besides the prigs, Conservatives have stood up in full-throated defence of these young men. We have done this since the beginning, and have hounded out the truth and have even brought around a few honest leftists to see the truth (60 Minutes, Susan Estrich). Outside of KC and Coleman, where were the early "liberal" supporters? Where was the support on the Left outside of Jeralyn (who'll defend anyone and whose opinion is a Johnny Cochrane-esque indicator of guilt)?

Many "liberals" and most of the Left still want to use the railroad for their class war. The 88 want to, and will resort to hateful racist emails to parents to do so. "theman" wants to. Wendy Murphy wants to. Face it, you run with fascist thieves, as the Left has done forever and will continue to do so as long as it endorses theft and class war rather than the precepts that all people are created equal and are equal under the law (no special taxes nor special rewards solely thanks to your class, color, or creed).

Look, I *am* a classical liberal/libertarian. You don't need to tell me what it's all about. My point, however, was that not all liberals (in the US sense) disagree with the idea that we're all equal under the law, etc. In fact most *agree* with it. But commenters here, as they do on many conservative blogs and message boards, continue to treat "liberal" as equal to "radical" or even "Marxist" in ways that are utterly nonsensical and distortive of the truth.

There ARE many liberals who, as the facts of this case have been revealed, are sympathetic to the cause of the lax players, even if they might also find their behavior boorish though noting that's a whole different animal than rape.

In discussing this case with liberal faculty colleagues, more of them are closer to my views on it than what folks seem to think "all liberals think" (as if that were just one thing).

Totally agree with you. The word liberal once had a distingished meaning closely associated with liberty--LOL

Unfortunately, the word has become bastardized by, among others, conservatives like Rush Limbaugh. When the Rushes of the world hear the word, all they can conjure is friends of affirmative action, abortion rights, etc.

Deb,You're right, yellow dog, blue dog is a band. It was late at night.

Terry did have some god awful teeth, but it never stopped him from mouthing the liberal crap of the day. His PERSONAL assaults and his use of the Duke Presidency for his own political purposes was disgusting.

Why is the liberal faulty pushing the Terry the Saint? Because he personally ran off every conservative on campus. No wonder they think he is a Saint. Stalin comes to mind. You believed in his way or it was the highway.

Here's a challenge for all the Terry lovers. Show me one time he ever compromised while he was on campus?

When do we expect the paternity tests results come out. We know it is no match of any of the lacrosse players, but it would very interesting to see it they can match it somehow in their data base of DNA or with one of the DPD. Just a hunch.

Hey Deb, Don't let the parents unassuming attitude towards the FA fool you,when it's done, they'll go after her too, any money she makes from "The Book" will be the families after she loses the civil suit....

Blog Awards

About Me

I am from Higgins Beach, in Scarborough, Maine, six miles south of Portland. After spending five years as track announcer at Scarborough Downs, I left to study fulltime in graduate school, where my advisor was Akira Iriye. I have a B.A. and Ph.D. from Harvard, and an M.A. from the University of Chicago. At Brooklyn College and the CUNY Graduate Center, I teach classes in 20th century US political, constitutional, and diplomatic history; in 2007-8, I was Fulbright Distinguished Chair for the Humanities at Tel Aviv University.

Book

Comments Policy

(1) Comments are moderated, but with the lightest of touches, to exclude only off-topic comments or obviously racist or similar remarks.

(2) My clearing a comment implies neither that I agree nor that I disagree with the comment. My opinion is expressed in my words and my words only. Since this blog has more than 1500 posts, and since I at least occasionally comment myself, the blog provides more than enough material for readers to discern my opinions.

(3) If a reader finds an offensive comment, I urge the reader to e-mail me; if the comment is offensive, I will gladly delete it.

(4) Commenters who either misrepresent their identity or who engage in obvious troll behavior will not have their comments cleared. Troll-like behavior includes, but is not limited to: repeatedly linking to off-topic sites; repeatedly asking questions that already have been answered; offering unsubstantiated remarks whose sole purpose appears to be inflaming other commenters.

"From the Scottsboro Boys to Clarence Gideon, some of the most memorable legal narratives have been tales of the wrongly accused. Now “Until Proven Innocent,” a new book about the false allegations of rape against three Duke lacrosse players, can join these galvanizing cautionary tales . . , Taylor and Johnson have made a gripping contribution to the literature of the wrongly accused. They remind us of the importance of constitutional checks on prosecutorial abuse. And they emphasize the lesson that Duke callously advised its own students to ignore: if you’re unjustly suspected of any crime, immediately call the best lawyer you can afford."--Jeffrey Rosen, New York Times Book Review